quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
We need to get away from this 'weapons of war' bullshit and other Leftist red herrings.

It's the right of a person to defend oneself against tyranny in whatever form it takes. No restrictions.

This shouldn't even have to go to the SC. These laws shouldn't be on the books. The SC needs to drive a tops down effort to eliminate any law that is in conflict with rights or the Constitution. There is some much politically based bloat on the books it's ridiculous.

Preach it.

Leave it to politicians and judges to fuck up some of the clearest language ever written, and the only place our Founding Fathers felt the need to clarify that it shouldn't be screwed with. Didn't help, though, and they've been screwing it up ever since.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

The 4th Circuit, ruling 10-4, said it had no power to extend constitutional protections to “weapons of war.”

That's just simply outrageous to me. Nearly every firearm ever made, including the ones available to the men who drafted the Constitution, was a "weapon of war."

This is all just a bit infuriating.

And wasn't the NFA upheld because of some BS argument that SBR/SBS's were NOT weapons of war, and thus not protected?

I think its time to take a different tact. The Founders gave us a game plan that we should follow.
The 2nd amendment does not start and end there. It comprises state statutes and Article 1, Section 8, Cls. 15 & 16.
They gave us the authority "to execute the Laws of the Union" so we could put tyranny to rest.

This weapon was designed, produced, and used for WAR!

SCOTUS has very clearly avoided any significant 2nd Amendment cases after the Heller/McDonald lines of cases. I wish I knew why. They have the votes for cert with the 4 conservatives. The only thing I can think of is that the 4 aren't confident in getting Kennedy on board for any expansion of 2A rights and don't want to risk an anti-2A decision.

Hopefully, Trump will get to appoint another Justice , and we'll see if they start to take the 2A cases gain with a solid 5 vote majority.

The founding fathers had no idea what the future of "arms" would be, nor did the dispense with the frivolous waste of time over such futile considerations, for that knew full well the heart and mind of man, and that all will eventually seek to subjugate those they can.

And with this, they made sure that the right of the individual to to be free to choose his own destiny meant that the recognition of having any and all means to defend that right not be prohibited in any law of the new Republic.

"...shall not be infringed..."

The eleventh commandment.

they may be waiting for just that event

a clear 5/4

I hope I am wrong but I don't know if we can count on Justice Roberts either after his obamacare vote.

I'm happy/sad about the MD AWB. It's clear that former Governor O'Malley used the gun ban liberal handbook banning guns by name/type which does suck. Especially since I'd just sold a nice AK before the ban hit. Grrrr

What I like about it is O'Malley did this BS so he could show his liberal douche allies/base that he's a good gun grabber as he prepped for his run for president (gotta check the gun ban box if u a lib and want to run for prez right?) and then he lasted 30 seconds in the his presidential race. Ha Ha dummy have fun in the land of political obscurity. Just wish you hadn't shit on MD's 2A rights on the way out you fuck head.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
The founding fathers had no idea what the future of "arms" would be, nor did the dispense with the frivolous waste of time over such futile considerations, for that knew full well the heart and mind of man, and that all will eventually seek to subjugate those they can.

And with this, they made sure that the right of the individual to to be free to choose his own destiny meant that the recognition of having any and all means to defend that right not be prohibited in any law of the new Republic.

"...shall not be infringed..."

The eleventh commandment.

I agree.

Had there been literal riots after each and every incremental restriction since 12/15/1791, it would been completely justified. And, it's probably what should have happened.

Instead, this natural right (merely yet importantly ensconced by the 2nd) has been eroded, one inch at a time, and yet folks ask for even more, and worse - accept the erosions...

The SCOTUS is really leaving me feeling disgusted with them over this. As noted by ChicagoSigMan above, the court has clearly been avoiding 2A issues since the Heller and McDonald rulings. Those rulings put to rest the meaning of the first part of the 2A language (i.e. 2A is an 'individual' right). The only thing remaining for them to weigh in on (which is ludicrous they even have to weigh in on it) is the following phrase...

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Anyone who can read at grade level should be able to reach a decision on that phrase in 10 minutes. Unfortunately, there are four votes on the court currently where ideology trumps the Constitution, the law, and the founder's intentions. That too is disgusting.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
SCOTUS has very clearly avoided any significant 2nd Amendment cases after the Heller/McDonald lines of cases. I wish I knew why. They have the votes for cert with the 4 conservatives. The only thing I can think of is that the 4 aren't confident in getting Kennedy on board for any expansion of 2A rights and don't want to risk an anti-2A decision.

Hopefully, Trump will get to appoint another Justice , and we'll see if they start to take the 2A cases gain with a solid 5 vote majority.

The Constitution imposes checks to balance the power of the three branches. The checks on the legislative and executive branches are obvious but the biggest check on the judiciary is often overlooked--the judicial branch has no power to enforce its mandates. That means, in practice, that the Court cannot vary too far from prevailing societal or political norms (whatever that may mean at the time) or it risks diminishing its authority. A close ruling on such a divisive issue has ample potential for that so the "conservatives" are likely biding their time. To be clear, this is only partially by design; it is also an unintended and unfortunate consequence of the politicization of the judicial branch.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
SCOTUS has very clearly avoided any significant 2nd Amendment cases after the Heller/McDonald lines of cases. I wish I knew why. They have the votes for cert with the 4 conservatives. The only thing I can think of is that the 4 aren't confident in getting Kennedy on board for any expansion of 2A rights and don't want to risk an anti-2A decision.

Hopefully, Trump will get to appoint another Justice , and we'll see if they start to take the 2A cases gain with a solid 5 vote majority.

The Constitution imposes checks to balance the power of the three branches. The checks on the legislative and executive branches are obvious but the biggest check on the judiciary is often overlooked--the judicial branch has no power to enforce its mandates. That means, in practice, that the Court cannot vary too far from prevailing societal or political norms(whatever that may mean at the time) or it risks diminishing its authority. A close ruling on such a divisive issue has ample potential for that so the "conservatives" are likely biding their time. To be clear, this is only partially by design; it is also an unintended and unfortunate consequence of the politicization of the judicial branch.

You mean like overturning a definition of marriage that held for centuries across cultures all over the world? Or maybe you are referring to a court deciding that the government has the power to tax you for deciding not to buy something? Or maybe you have in mind the decision where the court stated that eminent domain meant that private property can be condemned for the benefit of other private property owners. Or that abortion is a fundamental right.

SCOTUS makes giant leaps in legal and social policy all the time. I would agree that Roberts is more attuned to the perception of the court and its authority, but he is allowing political considerations to influence the court's decisions, which is not appropriate.

In any case, I don't think that is what is going on with the 2A cases post-Heller/McDonald. Close rulings are and have been common at SCOTUS for as long as I can remember. And with the elections of the past 7 years, it's hard to say that a pro-2A decision would be out of step with prevailing societal norms. Striking down "may issue" or an AWB would not rock the country to its core.

What will erode the Court's authority is allowing lower courts to openly flout SCOTUS precedent - which is what is happening. The justices know this, and so there must be a reason why they still continue to refuse these cases. I gave my best guess as to why and it is just a guess - but there has to be a reason why SCOTUS would allow this situation to persist at such great risk to the Court's stature.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
I'm not entirely broken up about this.

Remember - Gorsuch only replaced Scalia. We're still at a 4/4 split with no telling which way the swing vote will go (or who it will be for that matter).

It could have been a spectacular victory - or an equally spectacular loss at this point, particularly following Vegas.

-Rob

This is almost the exact thing I tell people.

While I would love to see the USSC ruling in favor of gun owners I am just as worried a ruling against gun owners could lead to even more restrictions.

I hope that in the next few year maybe the balance of the court may change. I can only hope.

quote:

Originally posted by muddle_mann:
I'm happy/sad about the MD AWB. It's clear that former Governor O'Malley used the gun ban liberal handbook banning guns by name/type which does suck. Especially since I'd just sold a nice AK before the ban hit. Grrrr

What I like about it is O'Malley did this BS so he could show his liberal douche allies/base that he's a good gun grabber as he prepped for his run for president (gotta check the gun ban box if u a lib and want to run for prez right?) and then he lasted 30 seconds in the his presidential race. Ha Ha dummy have fun in the land of political obscurity. Just wish you hadn't shit on MD's 2A rights on the way out you fuck head.

O'Malley was/is a king D-bag. Until he came along MD main issue was CCW. You could still buy most things. Mags where a PIA but there were and are legal ways to deal with that.

The added cost of fingerprinting now and other requirements/restrictions are a major PIA.

It doesn't stop crime just add an extra layer of cost and time to law-abiding people.